Ok the origins could be from anywhere but France I toss in the hat people with much more brains than myself have thought France to be the birthplace as well. I don't think it matters at this point as we may never be able to prove anything 100% all I know is where my people came from and that I have a old French Surname did they come from somewhere else in between 2500 years ago and the 1400s who knows Not trying to be a smart ass it just seems people like myself are stuck on one spot so no matter what comes to light it is over looked I'm at fault myself

Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b5a Sry2627+ My family was exiled from Cognac France in 1685 Lived in London for 15 years then on to America to the Manikin town settlement for French Protestants in 1700

Ok the origins could be from anywhere but France I toss in the hat people with much more brains than myself have thought France to be the birthplace as well. I don't think it matters at this point as we may never be able to prove anything 100% all I know is where my people came from and that I have a old French Surname did they come from somewhere else in between 2500 years ago and the 1400s who knows Not trying to be a smart ass it just seems people like myself are stuck on one spot so no matter what comes to light it is over looked I'm at fault myself

Yes, it is definitely important in France as well as the northern area of Spain aka the Pyrenees. The general area of modern frequency is along the western coast in France.. In Spain it seems to hold the highest frequencies in the Pyrenees. I'm not sure where they collected samples from in Catalonia, but I'd say that the SRY2627 they did find wasn't far from Val D'aran. La Rioja is another area of decent frequency at 15%.. There are a few pre-roman tribes in this area of Spain and two of them seem to be Aquitani/Celtic in origin. These being the Berones who were Celtiberian and the Autrigones who were considered Basque, I believe. The Vascones were the other tribe and they too seem to be associated with Basques.

I guess my point is that the subclade seems to have been moved around by Aquitani and Celtic tribes more so than any other group of the time. Aquitani/Celtic or Celtic/Aquitani is a good description for the clade in my opinion.. No doubt some of the SRY2627 found in the far-flung regions like Romania and Scandinavia were introduced via trade and or military conquests. I'm sure the romans had a lot to do with that.

I'm kinda leaning away from trying to figure out where it originated.. that seems to be an up-hill battle that has no end in sight. Best we can do at the moment is speculate on ethnic association. Which is a shame with regards to Aquitani, Basque and Iberian tribes.. which have little to no info on them.

The bulk of the samples collected in Catalonia for SRY2627 have come from the Girona province and mostly in the Pyrenean regions of both Girona and Llieda provinces. The numbers historically from all academic research have been highest near the Pyrenees on the northern side of Spain. The more recent French data has gravitated towards the Mid-Pyrenees region nearest the Pyrenees. I feel the Garonne/Garona River has a quite a significant impact on the Atlantic spread of the subclade as well its impact found in Iberia today. We've been at this for quite some time and no other 'hot spot' has set any new precedence in both commercial or academic testing. Status quo is the same but I would not be surprised if we did find a pocket or cluster in France somewhere in due time that could be the purported area where SRY2627 thrived and multiplied. If I was to make a bet I would play it safe and say whatever new 'hot spots' may exist, if they do, it would be in southern France somewhere. I am pretty comfortable with an Aquitani situation for SRY2627.

The bulk of the samples collected in Catalonia for SRY2627 have come from the Girona province and mostly in the Pyrenean regions of both Girona and Llieda provinces. The numbers historically from all academic research have been highest near the Pyrenees on the northern side of Spain. The more recent French data has gravitated towards the Mid-Pyrenees region nearest the Pyrenees. I feel the Garonne/Garona River has a quite a significant impact on the Atlantic spread of the subclade as well its impact found in Iberia today. We've been at this for quite some time and no other 'hot spot' has set any new precedence in both commercial or academic testing. Status quo is the same but I would not be surprised if we did find a pocket or cluster in France somewhere in due time that could be the purported area where SRY2627 thrived and multiplied. If I was to make a bet I would play it safe and say whatever new 'hot spots' may exist, if they do, it would be in southern France somewhere. I am pretty comfortable with an Aquitani situation for SRY2627.

Arch

Thanks for the info on the Catalan samples. The Poitou region and the Gascon region seem to be the most promising for France. You and I both have mentioned Poitou a few times and if we're finding a frequency spike via commercial testing, then an academic study would definitely be more revealing. This is my reasoning for a Celtic/Aquitani label instead of just the Aquitani one. Both have their merits and I don't think one was more important than the other in spreading the clade. To reiterate, I think those people with ancestry to the Isles are the result of Celtic migration and trade. Those in Gascony and the Pyrenees seem to be tossed between Aquitani and Basque tribes. As someone pointed out on another site, I wonder how much SRY2627 would be left in the isles if you took out the Norman factor? There was a contingency of Breton soldiers who were recruited to help conquer England. Though the fact that it seems to hold water in Southwest England is more indicative of trade links between Brittany. You could toss the Romans in the ring, but really the area of Dumnonia wasn't really conquered by the Romans.. Rather they seem to have let them do their own thing, with the exception of Exeter being a bit more Romanized. Though that didn't last past their occupation as the tribes reverted back to their pre-roman ways of governance. So impact was very little in the area where not just SRY2627, but also people of the N/S variety seem to cluster most. U152 comes to mind when speaking of the Roman introduced sub clade of P312.

We should also take into consideration with a much later Norman conquest how many Poitevins were part of that contingent too. I think it's too late in time to be of much or any consequence. I would favor a more distant time frame from 500 AD to LBA. We must remember people have been coming to Britain and Ireland for quite some time before SRY2627 was a thing. I've stated this many years ago about the Atlantic trade exchange network that included rare metals such as tin that was transported along the Loire River and inland by way of the Cher River, eventually making its way to Massilia. I also think the Garonne-Aude River corridor was significant for trade between the ancient city of Burgdila (Bordeaux) and Narbonne with Tolosa as the crossroads. Commercial testing in France shows an increased frequency around La Rochelle and Poitou-Charentes region but I would be cautious on going this as sole source of proof because commercial testing is subjected by how many people know about it and how many are willing to pay to participate.

Exeter was not the only place that had a Roman influence in Dumnonia. There are other posts and villas in the region that were established. Having a Roman legion anywhere is a significant thing. If you really think about it, there not that many in Britain and they were quite well spread out. The legion at Exeter like many others in later Roman Britain eventually found their way to Hadrian's Wall. I would be curious as to what influences that Poitevin/Aquitani people were part of the Roman legion contingent or cohorts that may have been with the Augustus Legio II in Exeter. It certainly seems that this one particular legion and its location in Exeter would have been influence by the Poitou or Aquitani region (not so much the hostile Veneti region). The other legions primarily appear to have arrived in Britain along its southeastern shoreline. Whatever the case, the Romans in Exeter is unique.

Okay. This is looking good, I believe my ancestry comes from Wellington, Herefordshire with traces back to a John Yeomans who was born around 1593. I have some possible good confirmations of connections made through 23andMe to a 2nd to 3rd cousin. I am crossing my fingers and the data so far up to 1880s meshes with Nova Scotia and with Boston, MA. I was really thinking a later arrival to England from France sometime within the 1600s but this is not the case. I started off with a John Yeomans born in 1700 and I figured Herefordshire being a mostly rural marcher county since antiquity that families there would be long settled, I was right to some extent to get back from 1700 to late 1500s - I am hoping to reach back a little more and see if there's any connection to the Yeomans/Yeamans in Bristol during the mid to late 1600s. One name Francis might be a possibility and Margaret seems to be a common thread for spouses within the family. It is bizarre as I had an aunt named Margaret married to an Uncle in the 1970s.

Of additional interest is the DYS 448 = 17 being what appears to be a strong Welsh marker (at least I was told that) with the Goch family and a few others. This I would guess is a good indicator of at least a West Midlands to West Country connection as one gets closer to Wales.

Okay. This is looking good, I believe my ancestry comes from Wellington, Herefordshire with traces back to a John Yeomans who was born around 1593. I have some possible good confirmations of connections made through 23andMe to a 2nd to 3rd cousin. I am crossing my fingers and the data so far up to 1880s meshes with Nova Scotia and with Boston, MA. I was really thinking a later arrival to England from France sometime within the 1600s but this is not the case. I started off with a John Yeomans born in 1700 and I figured Herefordshire being a mostly rural marcher county since antiquity that families there would be long settled, I was right to some extent to get back from 1700 to late 1500s - I am hoping to reach back a little more and see if there's any connection to the Yeomans/Yeamans in Bristol during the mid to late 1600s. One name Francis might be a possibility and Margaret seems to be a common thread for spouses within the family. It is bizarre as I had an aunt named Margaret married to an Uncle in the 1970s.

Of additional interest is the DYS 448 = 17 being what appears to be a strong Welsh marker (at least I was told that) with the Goch family and a few others. This I would guess is a good indicator of at least a West Midlands to West Country connection as one gets closer to Wales.

Arch

Congrats! Glad to see you're making some headway. The Southwest/West country trend seems to be holding rather well for SRY2627.

Thanks! It was 23andMe that did the trick and luckily somebody was researching the line connecting to a 2nd cousin female. It's amazing how the lady doing the research nailed it right on the head with my great grandfather being married to an Irish lady named Rose and how it connected to Canada which I have proof on a 1915 census record that traces back to c.1885/1886 to Boston, MA. I dug back a little further and found a connection to Charlestown, MA and Billerica, MA (I never could spell that city's name correctly). I thought maybe the Appleby connection would place the ancestry to nearer Colchester and Billercay but it wasn't as close of a match as I thought.

What is odd is the connection to Hereford cattle and for the life of me I don't remember much of any family history connected to raising cattle and bringing Hereford breeds to the United States. However, I distinctly remember my father mentioning that he did recall a Rose who might have been involved with cattle or pigs in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia (she apparently landed into money or it may have been money connected to the Herefords?). So that's a little odd and maybe it's something (cattle raising) that was done on a more distant or divergent line. The surname is found all over the place in Herefordshire but Wellington seems to be great start and my guess is the lineage can be traced southwards towards the Wye and Severn or Bristol Channel region.

My focus is now on the churches and I found some interesting features such as Richard or Ricus Yeomans signature underneath the rood (cross?) on St Margaret's of Antioch in Wellington, John Yeomans memorial at St Weonards. Now if I can find a connection to the Tune (SRY2627) and Durrett (SRY2627) with ancestry to Northern Neck or nearby region in Virginia that would be cool. I have Upper Farnham with the James Tune and James Yeomans in 1667 I think but maybe its just a coincidence that a fellow SRY2627 member connected with the Yeomans surname in Northern Neck. I do find it odd that these people were primarily planters and James Yeomans gave James Tune a cow instead of a bunch of tobacco. Even more strange is that I can find no more info on James Yeomans in Northern Neck. But I would suspect with another SRY2627 fellow Durret in near proximity of Northern Neck and being my closest match after James Tune would account for something.

The only issue I'm having with the Aquitani label, is that it is a pre-Indo-European/Neolithic language and tribe. It would seem based on our sub clades age that it was moving into these areas just as these peoples main y-haplo's were being replaced/outbred. So that means that SRY2627 or rather L176.2 or Z196, would have been Indo-European originally, but simply adopted the host culture/language. So is the Aquitani label really correct? For convenience it seems so (based on modern frequency), but then we aren't really telling the full story are we?

I'm not sure which side to set up camp in.. The popular idea seems to be that DF27 occurred on the way to Iberia/Southern France and then re-expanded into central and northern Europe in the form of its younger sub clades. So SRY2627 may well be Aquitani if one were following this idea.. well, in the sense that it was born to Aquitani woman and was raised in that culture. The father's culture being lost in subsequent generations.

I started out with a strong idea and gradually talked myself out of it! Now I'm no further advanced than I was when I first started!

The only issue I'm having with the Aquitani label, is that it is a pre-Indo-European/Neolithic language and tribe. It would seem based on our sub clades age that it was moving into these areas just as these peoples main y-haplo's were being replaced/outbred. So that means that SRY2627 or rather L176.2 or Z196, would have been Indo-European originally, but simply adopted the host culture/language. So is the Aquitani label really correct? For convenience it seems so (based on modern frequency), but then we aren't really telling the full story are we?

I'm not sure which side to set up camp in.. The popular idea seems to be that DF27 occurred on the way to Iberia/Southern France and then re-expanded into central and northern Europe in the form of its younger sub clades. So SRY2627 may well be Aquitani if one were following this idea.. well, in the sense that it was born to Aquitani woman and was raised in that culture. The father's culture being lost in subsequent generations.

I started out with a strong idea and gradually talked myself out of it! Now I'm no further advanced than I was when I first started!

LOL! Welcome to my world! Start off with an idea and next thing you know it just does not quite work out.

In regards to the Aquitani label don't dismiss it too easily because the Aquitani were there when the Romans arrived to Gaul after they conquered Iberia. So in terms of them being older than Indo-European, don't get caught up in that trap. Aside from any ancient DNA we just have to look at the data where the subclade has a strong presence and highest diversity. This is far better than looking for far flung points of origin that may have no cultural impact whatsoever as babies migrate with families too and may not have a strong cultural identity to his or her parent's homeland. It's not to say there will not be influences imposed by the parents into the family itself but it will nonetheless be imported from afar. I think the Aquitani connection is good as any other such as Iberian or Celtic.

The only issue I'm having with the Aquitani label, is that it is a pre-Indo-European/Neolithic language and tribe. It would seem based on our sub clades age that it was moving into these areas just as these peoples main y-haplo's were being replaced/outbred. So that means that SRY2627 or rather L176.2 or Z196, would have been Indo-European originally, but simply adopted the host culture/language. So is the Aquitani label really correct? For convenience it seems so (based on modern frequency), but then we aren't really telling the full story are we?

I'm not sure which side to set up camp in.. The popular idea seems to be that DF27 occurred on the way to Iberia/Southern France and then re-expanded into central and northern Europe in the form of its younger sub clades. So SRY2627 may well be Aquitani if one were following this idea.. well, in the sense that it was born to Aquitani woman and was raised in that culture. The father's culture being lost in subsequent generations.

I started out with a strong idea and gradually talked myself out of it! Now I'm no further advanced than I was when I first started!

LOL! Welcome to my world! Start off with an idea and next thing you know it just does not quite work out.

In regards to the Aquitani label don't dismiss it too easily because the Aquitani were there when the Romans arrived to Gaul after they conquered Iberia. So in terms of them being older than Indo-European, don't get caught up in that trap. Aside from any ancient DNA we just have to look at the data where the subclade has a strong presence and highest diversity. This is far better than looking for far flung points of origin that may have no cultural impact whatsoever as babies migrate with families too and may not have a strong cultural identity to his or her parent's homeland. It's not to say there will not be influences imposed by the parents into the family itself but it will nonetheless be imported from afar. I think the Aquitani connection is good as any other such as Iberian or Celtic.

Arch

Glad you and I are still having these conversations! Even though we aren't really making any vast strides, at least we are still speculating and mulling over what is likely and what isn't. It's unfortunate that our group has shrunk so much in size.. I think.. No, I know, that we are the only ones still having discussions like this. Of course I understand there isn't much to discuss and this is due to the sloth paced level of research into our group.. If there's any at all.

Ah well, back to the topic at hand..

I wasn't suggesting that the Aquitani were older than the Indo-European movement of people. I was suggesting that the group that carried our sub clade (or precursor to our sub clade) wasn't in the region until just before the Romans came in and did their thing. I agree, Aquitani is a good ancient ethnic label or rather association.. I was just arguing that it might not have arisen within that specific ethno-linguistic group. So I don't think we should be so quick to proclaim it the official Aquitani marker. I'll say that for any cultural group, not just Aquitani. I generally favor what Maciamo from Eupedia has to say on the situation.

"I think it is very possible that all Iberia and Southwest France, and not just the Basques, kept their original Neolithic languages following the Bronze Age Indo-European invasions.

The survival of the indigenous language would have been the most likely scenario if the IE/R1b invaders were predominantly men. An army of adventurous Celtic men riding horses and equipped with bronze weapons could have butchered a substantial part of the Neolithic Iberian male population and taken their women. As good conquerors they would have taken many wives or concubines each (polygamy), having a great many children each, which helped the spread of R1b Y-DNA lineages (see How did R1b become dominant in Western Europe). Children, however, learn the language of the people who raise them, and these kinds of fathers would not have been able to take care of so many children. They would have concentrated on ruling their new land and enjoying their privileges, and left the education of their offspring to the (local) women.

After one, or a few, generation(s) their IE language would have completed disappeared, leaving only the previous Neolithic languages. It is possible, and even expected, that a few loanwords from (Proto-)Celtic entered the non-IE languages of Iberia and Southwest France to fill the gaps in vocabulary for new Bronze Age technologies brought by the Indo-Europeans. This is exactly what we see in the modern Basque vocabulary. I expect that the same happened to all other non-IE languages of the peninsula in the Bronze Age."

Also, the Aquitani language is considered by most scholars to be a form of Proto-Basque. I think the above post is accurate in surmising that the Aquitani language somehow survived the incursion of R1b-SRY2627 just as the Basque language survived the incursion of R1b-M153, despite the fact that these 2 Y-markers are usually associated within a broader family of proto-Celtic people.

I would also be cautious of the invader coming in raping and pillaging, taking our women scenario. Oftentimes this is written by the losing side or supporters of it. Not to mention it is usually written well beyond the date any sort of conflict that happened between two cultures/tribes (and by hundreds of years). So it's often subjected to a lot of conjecture and it's impossible to validate all of it. The Celtic invasion theory of Britain has finally lost its grip in academia and this is perhaps good just provided their is no ulterior motive for revision of history for whatever reasons. There are plenty of other events in our history books that we should definitely question.

Okay, so I'm feel pretty confident my ancestry is traceable to Herefordshire to 1799. I have also been scouring every piece of data I could find about the specific locality and I keep leaning towards two primary locations; Wellington and Titley. There are two other good candidates such as Moreton and Bromyard but I don't feel too confident on them. Dividing Herefordshire between the River Wye, it seems like the bulk of the families that I have traced are found on the "English" side of the Wye. My guess (although it could be very wrong) is for density of the surname in the more rural western and northern region would most likely be a longer family lineage in the region. The earliest trace of what looks to be a good connection is to the late 1500s in around Wellington and in Kington. Given that I have a close GD to Juillet in Poitou-Charentes region just west of Poitiers and north of La Rochell, I'm trying to get an idea of when my family arrived to Britain or maybe when his branch arrived to France from Britain. LOL.

Researching deeper into the history of region has been quite interesting. I never knew how much Roman activity was going on there at Kenchester, etc. on the Roman Road between Caerleon and Wroxeter. It must have been an important places by all means. Also Credenhill having one of the largest hillfort next to the famous Badbury Rings in Dorset seems to be virtually unheard of. Looking at the activity of sub-Roman Britain of this region is quite interesting too. It appears that most of Herefordshire was under a few petty Welsh kingdoms prior to the Mercian takeover and these kingdoms were ruled under Powys - Vortigern's kingdom? I though that was quite interesting. Trying to figure out if there may be a Silurian connection is another objective. It would be astonishing if we could validate the Greek description of the Silures as having origins in Iberia.

I'm sure some shady DNA company will exploit this idea for marketing purposes.

It is extremely fascinating how one can come across such a nondescript area such as Wellington, Herefordshire and find out that it has some very ancient connections. The Bell Beaker burial near Wellington is one of high status. There is also a large Roman Villa and Saxon period water mills of a royal court. This probably reflects King Offa's palace as the spread of Mercia moved west towards Wales. There are also Neolithic era finds. To the west is Kenchester and the ancient Iron Age hill fort at Credenhill as well Sutton Walls to the east. Amazing stuff. Now if we can get that Bell Beaker DNA.

Also Arch we cannot forget Callanish and Stonehenge stone circles that I mentioned in an earler post.

"Also with L165 and SRY2627 being so close together in the Phylogenetic Tree makes me wonder why we do not find a closer number of both L165 and SRY2627 SNPs clusters together in geographical groupings? (With both the L165 north cluster and L165 south cluster both being so close to either the Callanish stone circle of the Isle of Lewis or the Stonehenge stone circle of south England it also makes you wonder if there is a relationship as builder of these engineered structures.)"

One thing I have certainly noticed is how nearly impossible it is to really cluster events, structures, and people in Britain on a historical basis. I'm almost certain that it's the same ordeal with genetics. I see important figures meander all over the island since the time of Caratacus from a historical context, of course from an archaeological context, Bell Beaker grave goods and skeletons are found nearly everywhere on the island and we know they have a continental origins. I'm still in favor of an Iberian origin. It makes sense, it seems to agree with the concept on how Britain was not really invaded by the Celts but was an assimilation of people from the continent expanding along the trade-exchange networks. I haven't forgotten about the L165 guys and I think its interesting, and I would almost place money on a connection to Bronze Age people from the Baltic that was part of the later expansion of the Bell Beakers from Iberia.

It is interesting that on Google you can find references that Bell Beaker earthenwear and remains of Bell Beaker's have been found near Stonehenge yet no research references or studies on DNA in regard to these finds are available. There seems to be a disinterest between those researchers of history in using DNA for furthering their studies. With the new methods of determining DNA from femurs etc DNA could greatly increase their studies but it appears to be there is a turf war in regard to the use of DNA.

It is interesting that on Google you can find references that Bell Beaker earthenwear and remains of Bell Beaker's have been found near Stonehenge yet no research references or studies on DNA in regard to these finds are available. There seems to be a disinterest between those researchers of history in using DNA for furthering their studies. With the new methods of determining DNA from femurs etc DNA could greatly increase their studies but it appears to be there is a turf war in regard to the use of DNA.

Now I'm getting sucked into the proto-Minoan stuff with the Bell Beakers. I do have to wonder if Mr. Maritime Bell Beaker ever met Mr. Minoan Sea Person.

Hello my name is Frank,I am new to this forum and brand new to DNA testing, reading and interpreting results. I just got my Geno 2.0 results back and my Parental Line is R-Z199, Maternal line J1B3A. I transfered it over to FTDNA and got Parental line R-SRY2627, Maternal line the same. So my question is GENO 2.0 has one an FTDN has an other, is there two different R groups or are they both the same??? Thanks

Hello my name is Frank,I am new to this forum and brand new to DNA testing, reading and interpreting results. I just got my Geno 2.0 results back and my Parental Line is R-Z199, Maternal line J1B3A. I transfered it over to FTDNA and got Parental line R-SRY2627, Maternal line the same. So my question is GENO 2.0 has one an FTDN has an other, is there two different R groups or are they both the same??? Thanks

Frank -

Z199+ and SRY2627+ are distinct SNPs that are apparently phylogenetically equivalent according to one haplotree that I consulted.